Options
Britons to spend first five months working for the State and not themselves
The Adam Smith Institute thinks that we are over-taxed
"Britons are still desperately overtaxed. The fact that we spend almost five months working for the State – and only seven months working for ourselves and our families – is a shocking indictment of big, wasteful government.”
Let's hope that George Osborne cuts out some of the waste and lets people who work hard keep more of their own money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8228050/Britons-to-spend-first-five-months-paying-tax.html
"Britons are still desperately overtaxed. The fact that we spend almost five months working for the State – and only seven months working for ourselves and our families – is a shocking indictment of big, wasteful government.”
Let's hope that George Osborne cuts out some of the waste and lets people who work hard keep more of their own money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8228050/Britons-to-spend-first-five-months-paying-tax.html
0
Comments
Well, no surprise there then!:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_Institute
is the embodiment of the most free Capitalism possible. When you talk of free markets, ASI talks about no regulation rather than light-touch regulation.
They've suggested a long list (£90bn) of government assets they'd like to see sold. Whilst most would want banks returned to private ownership, some of the others are dubious.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thinktankcentral/2010/10/the-adamsmithinst-identifies-90-billion-of-privatisation-possibilities.html
Interesting article about privatisation of marriage:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/justice-and-civil-liberties/gay-marriage,-rights-and-privatization/
You have to see them as the most extreme elements of Thatcherism and free-market Capitalism.
I'd be interested to know if anyone disagrees with this last statement.
It did strike me the other day how "Liberalism", espoused by the right-wing of both Tory and LibDems, seems to suggest personal responsibility, personal freedoms, freedom from state interference, is rarely practiced in the true meaning of the word. There are many examples where those who follow Liberalism by name, but by deed introduce Section 28, restrict marriage to their own version of morality, seek harsh prison punishment rather than rehabilitation and use their religious and moral views to oppress others, eg. single mothers.
The Danes pay 50%+ income tax and have been found to be the happiest people in the world.
We have something to learn from them.
I agree that there are some extreme views of which I do not approve.
But the only point that I was trying to make is that those who do work and who are the financial backbone of the nation are bearing far too heavy a burden. They are the ones who are facing rising prices and they are the most deserving of a break. imo.:)
Well in that survey Britain also came a long way behind countries that have much lower levels of taxation - so quite what you think you are going to learn from it I'm not sure.
Surely taxation has to be based on the ability to pay?
Those earning high amounts with very large disposable incomes have a moral duty to pay more tax - at rates higher than those that are at present in place.
The rate of tax is meaningless unless we look at the value we get from it. A 10% tax rate is useless unless it comes with the quality of life.
Lower taxes mean less state spending and the money you save from that could disappear with increased cost of transport, utilities etc. Will we have to shell out for health insurance rather than the free NHS?
Tax cuts don't automatically mean more money in your pocket.
but why?
Surely the whole point of the tax system should be that it is designed to enable people to do better for themselves whilst retaining freedom and ambition to do better and earn more - whilst at the same time the state can just cream off the frothy top of what you earn, and not penalise you because you are rich and successful and limit your ability........
Tax is not a moral duty, it's a legal one only.
But you are assuming that all government spending is worthwhile - tax increases dont automatically mean better (or cheaper) services.
A person on £150k p.a. has a moral duty to pay more of that salary in tax than the 40% they do at present.
Paying more doesn't affect ability! A brain surgeon doesn't become less able because he is paying more tax!
It is not a question of "penalising" an individual - it is doing what a decent individual should want anyway.
Not all well paid people are driven by monetary gain......
So in your world there is no such thing as a moral imperative?
You only act like you do because of the laws that are in place?
I agree.
That is why I mention the value from the tax rate. A low tax rate may bring either prosperity or hardship, as does a high tax rate. What has been needed for a long time is a unflinching look at what public spending is needed and how it needs to be raised. Then we have to have the moral fortitude to accept and pay it, with ALL of us doing our bit. No evading or scrounging or fraud.
I thought they'd be making an appearance soon.........
Ah the moral duty card. :rolleyes:
Welfare is the single biggest budget in government by a mile so it is foolish not to consider it the biggest reason for such high tax.
That rather depends on who is doing the unflinching looking and what they come up with. The one unflinching reality is we can't even fund current public spending through taxation, we borrow £1 out of every £4 we spend.
Even if they dont tip over the £150k mark into the 50% tax bracket they would already be paying over 50% if you include tax and NI contributions.
The ASI have taken Adam Smith's ideas and produced their own bastardised form.
You'd never, for example, have the ASI saying - as Adam Smith did -
He also argued against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power. He even thought it was useful for governments to intervene to reduce poverty
Problem with a lot of people in this country is that they want US tax levels and European style benefits.
Not possible... but its amazing how many people want both.
Well this is wrong - however the public will not allow the Government, any Government to have the freedom to look at other ways of raising revenue.
My one example and evidence is thus:
NHS - to allow private companies to invest and provide services for the NHS = Labour luvies go mad and claim that this is privatisation of the NHS....... Surely the NHS is the NHS no matter how it is structured or funded?
Until the public think out of the box and allow our public services to have the freedom to look at different ways, and not be stuck in the old "taxation funded" way - The UK shall never ever have a well funded, modernised Public State System.......
Tax is not always the answer.